Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the application for land registration. While this Court upheld the
lower courts ruling on that issue, such
593
VOL. 324, FEBRUARY 3, 2000
593
Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro
affirmance in no way implied that the issue of jurisdiction was
likewise resolved. It is only now that the same issue is brought to
light for resolution.
Same; Same; Same; When a land registration court issues an
order of default, it is presumed to regularly perform its task in
accordance with law especially with regard to notice
requirements.As regards the jurisdiction of the Tagaytay City
branch over the land registration proceedings instituted by
private respondents, the order of general default issued in Land
Registration Case No. 299 is of relevance. When the Cavite City
branch of the CFI issued an order of default, it is presumed to
have regularly performed its task in accordance with law
especially with regard to notice requirements.
Same; Same; Same; Compliance with the requirement of notice
and publication has the effect of notifying all persons interested
in the proceedings.Compliance with the requirement of notice
and publication had the effect of notifying all persons interested
in the proceedings including the herein private respondents. As
this Court said in Aguilar v. Caoagdan: x x x it is true that
appellants were not personally notified of the pendency of the
present registration case even if they were actually occupying,
as they claim, portions of the land, but such procedural defect
cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court because registration
proceedings have the nature of actions in rem. x x x.
Same; Same; Same; Double Registration; A proceeding in rem,
such as land registration proceedings, requires constructive
seizure of the land as against all persons, including the state,
who have rights to or interests in the property; Where a party
files an application for registration of a parcel of land which is
already the subject of registration proceedings, the second court
could no longer entertain the same.A proceeding in rem, such
as land registration proceedings, requires constructive seizure of
the land as against all persons, including the state, who have
rights to or interests in the property. Constructive seizure of the
land for registration is effected through publication of the
application for registration and service of notice to affected
the City of Tagaytay and the same should be pursued by the said
city.2
The oppositor municipality filed a motion for reconsideration of
the said order. On July 23, 1970, the court issued an order
stating that in order not to impede whatever action the
movant might take against the order of February 7, 1969, said
motion should be denied. On January 12, 1971, the applicants
filed a motion praying that the clerk of court be commissioned to
receive evidence for them it appearing that the order of July 23,
1970 had become final and executory by virtue of which the
Municipality of Silang no longer ha(d) any personality to appear
in these proceedings.3 The court granted said motion and
directed the clerk of court to submit a report on the matter.
In his report dated April 15, 1971, Clerk of Court Rolando D. Diaz
stated that since time immemorial, Micaela, Fer_______________
1 Rollo, p. 67.
599
2 Ibid., p. 68.
3 Decision in CA-G.R. No. 49053-R, p. 4; Rollo of G.R. No. 51054
(Municipality of Silang v. Court of Appeals), p. 52.
600
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro
nando, Ciriaco and Catalino, all surnamed De los Reyes, owned
and possessed the parcel of land in question. On November 3,
1870, they sold the land to Ambrocio Carrillo Trinidad and
Francisco Dimaranan. On September 15, 1892, the property
passed in ownership to Pedro Lopez de Leon, Sr. and Maxima
Carrillo Trinidad, the daughter and sole heir of Ambrocio Carrillo
Trinidad. Pedro and Maxima remained in possession of the
property until their death when their children, applicants Pedro
Lopez, Mariano Lopez de Leon, Pastor Lopez de Leon, Eulogio
Lopez, Clara Lopez, Ricarda Lopez and Rosario Lopez took over
ownership and possession thereof. Upon their death, their
respective heirs succeeded over the property and, on February
25, 1971, they partitioned it. The agricultural property was
under the supervision of Domingo Opena who planted portions
thereof to rice and other agricultural products.
The clerk of court thus recommended that the court confirm its
order of general default, approve his report, and register the
9 Ibid., p. 73.
10 Rollo of G.R. No. 51054, p. 102.
11 Rollo, p. 19.
12 Record, p. 83.
13 Presided by Judge Jose C. Colayco.
14 Rollo, pp. 82-84.
602
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro
property who declared the land for assessment and taxation
purposes in Cabuyao, Laguna. However, upon learning that the
property lies in Tagaytay City, the applicants declared it in their
names in said city.
The cause of the conflicting claims over the same land was
never explained because the head of the geodetic engineers of
the Land Registration Commission did not appear in court in
Land Registration Case No. 299. Hence, on August 19, 1981, the
CFI of Cavite, Branch III15 issued an order declaring that the
court had lost jurisdiction to hear the case, without, however,
dismissing the case.
Seven (7) years later, or on June 28, 1988, the heirs of Pedro
Lopez, et al. filed a complaint for execution of judgment and
cancellation of land titles of the defendants and their
successors-in-interest before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite,
Branch 18, at Tagaytay City. Docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1028,
the complaint named as defendants Honesto C. de Castro, Maria
Socorro de Castro married to Antonio Perigrina, Francisco de
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Pedro Lopez vs. De Castro
estoppel and failure to state a cause of action. They averred that
they were no longer the owners of the property as it had been
sold absolutely and unconditionally to innocent third parties for
valuable consideration and in good faith. They contended that
in view of the indefeasibility of their title to the property, even
the title of their successors-in-interest can not be subject to
collateral attack. They claimed that Branch III of the CFI in Cavite
should have remanded the records of LRC Case No. 299 or LRC
Record No. 11617 to the same CFI branch in Tagaytay City to
which the legal and proper jurisdiction to hear and decide that
particular case belonged. They asserted that the complaint
should have been directed by the plaintiffs against the
Assurance Fund under the provisions of P.D. No. 1529. Alleging
that the very precipitate and wrongful suit caused them
mental anguish, serious anxiety, social humiliation and similar
injury, they claimed moral damages of P500,000.00, nominal
damages of P100,000.00 and attorneys fees of P300,000.00.